Marked

Today's passage:  Romans 16:1-18
     There was a movement in education several years back (seems like there is always some kind of movement) regarding grading student work.  Studies showed that negative red marks on student work lowered their self esteem. I'm not sure what the solution to this "dilemma" was, because I had pretty well tuned out after that, but I would not be surprised if the recommendation had been never to point out wrong answers on schoolwork.  I guess that explaining to the kindergartner that two plus two is indeed four and not five would shatter his self image too much, and well, we wouldn't want that.
     I just thought to myself, wouldn't it be more harmful to his self esteem if they were allowed to believe that their wrong answers were alright even into adulthood?  Isn't someone along the way going to make him feel ignorant for his well, ignorance and maybe in a much less kind way than a red mark on a paper?  I can understand that a student might be discouraged at seeing a failing test with red x's all over it, but am I doing that child a favor by not pointing it out so he can learn from his mistake and get it right in the future?  And what about his classmates?  When they see each other's work (which they always do somehow), aren't they going to point out to me or to him that he got two plus two equals five wrong too?
     This brings me to the passage today.  In verses 17-18, Paul writes:

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." 

Demetrius the Silversmith Stirs up a Riot
Taken from Treasures of the Bible
By Henry Davenport Northrop, D.D.
International Publishing Company, 1894

     When I saw that word "mark", I immediately thought of taking a big red marker and drawing an "x" across something. Must be the teacher in me.  This is a hard truth.  And what is harder is that Paul points out the exact method a person uses to do this.  A person who is trying to divide a congregation doesn't go about it like a cyclone, although he has that exact effect.  How?  "By good words and fair speeches".  That would probably mean this is somebody who is very well liked.  I have seen this happen in churches before.  The pastor usually has to call out these particular people because it is what the Bible commands. Half the congregation feels this is extreme, because after all,  Mr. Division was such a helpful person.  He would see a need and be the first person there to assist (all the while planting heresy in the listener's ear).  Or Ms. Offence was always so efficient (especially at explaining why the pastor was wrong about the resurrection).

      The pastor has to expose this kind of behavior.  Why?  The end of verse 18 explains why, so that these deceivers can not lead hearts away.  The Bible calls them "simple", which I think would mean naive or trusting.  And who would be the most trusting in our congregations?  New converts and children.  I don't care how kind or helpful or efficient somebody is, if they are filling my children's ears with wrong doctrine, I don't want them teaching my children.  I don't want them around my children at all.  I would be justified in that because Paul doesn't only say "mark them", but he also says, "avoid them".  When a Mr. Division or Ms. Offence is asked to leave, he and she will more than likely take some followers with them, which is exactly why they have to be asked to leave in the first place.  If that kind of behavior is allowed to continue in a church, the whole congregation could be destroyed. I have never seen a  pastor enjoy exposing this kind of thing, but he is commanded to do it.  People may leave, but losing a few (although it would be preferable not to lose any) has to be risked than losing the whole church to heresy.  Church members who only saw the smiling, jovial, everybody's friend, Mr. Division or Ms. Offence may have been too wise for these people to expose their true selves.  Or true motives.  And this is the hardest part because it would be easier to believe that they are just deceived as well and they just need to grow more in the Lord.  And that may be true, but when they are trying to win others over to their point of view, especially in an already established church with a clear doctrinal statement, Paul says they are only doing it for one reason.  They are trying to serve their own belly.  Serve their own belly?  I've heard of filling a person's belly?  But I would guess it means about the same.  Serving one's belly would mean to have a full one.  And how would he be full?  When he has enough money to fill it.  So I'm guessing these deceivers have only one thing in mind.  Money.  I would like to assign purer motives to people most of the time, as I've said before, I like to think the best about people, but Paul is clear that these people are not trustworthy, and their motives are impure.
     If a pastor were to avoid pointing out these people because he was afraid of crushing someone's self esteem, he would be just as guilty as the teacher who fails to grade a paper properly.  Someone along the way is going to catch on, and the damage then might be far worse.

Statutes of Liberty

Today's passage:  Romans 15:1-6
     "For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me."
     Paul starts this chapter, reminding mature Christians to be careful with their Christian liberty.  The whole chapter before this dealt mostly with this subject, about not being a stumbling block, about abstaining from certain things (in this case meat offered to idols) if it would be a problem for a fellow Christian, particularly a Christian younger in the Lord.  Now, it would be easy to grumble and complain about this. I know many Christians grumble and complain about it, myself included, and I have a pretty sure guess that the Christians in the early church grumbled and complained as well.  If they hadn't, there would have been little need to address it.   Then Paul drops the anvil.  It is pretty hard to complain about giving up certain liberties until I realize that Christ gave everything up for me.

Picture is courtesy of http://breadsite.org

      If Jesus could have done it another way, I'm guessing He probably would have brought His riches from Heaven with Him. He would have been excellent help in Joseph's carpenter shop when He could speak a piece of furniture into existence rather than using the hammer, nails and wood.  Using his supernatural powers, He could have silenced the Pharisees by making them dumb.  He could transport from town to town to preach rather than walking those great distances and he would never have to borrow another man's home for a night's sleep.  If Jesus could have done it another way, He would probably never have come to earth at all.  He gave up His comforts, His powers, His life.  Anything I might have to give up seems awfully petty by comparison, doesn't it?  Now, I don't know why God chose to have Jesus come the way He did, but something tells me, that He had to live like us, to be an example for us.  None of us will have all the power of the universe, but I might have to change my way of doing things to reach someone else or help them grow.  I never had to give up golden streets or ivory palaces, but I might have to hold my tongue if someone says something unpleasant to me.  I never had to give up my life (prayerfully, never will) but I might have to steer away from certain topics of conversation if it might be offensive to a younger Christian.  Do I have the freedom to watch, go, listen to, say, whatever I want?  Of course I do.  Are there people who will take advantage of the Christian liberty issue, claiming they are offended by this thing or that thing?  Yes.  We will encounter that too, and then we have to decide if it is a matter of causing a Christian to genuinely stumble or whether they just have a critical spirit (which even if that is the case, doesn't necessarily mean I still shouldn't be accomodating).  Jesus could have barred the Pharisees from ever coming to listen to Him.  They were always critical, trying to entrap rather than enjoy.   They never came because they wanted to believe (although Nicodemus eventually did).  Jesus was not too concerned about offending them, because they never intended to receive Him.  But He is all-knowing, and He could make that judgement.  I am not.  So when my Christian liberty is in question, I would be better to let the thing go rather than examine all angles of the case to see if it is something I should continue to pursue.  Is my comfort or right to something really worth offending a fellow brother or sister in Christ, or worse yet, causing an  unsaved person to stay unsaved?  Every person has to decide that for herself, but as for me, I don't feel at liberty to risk it.

The Walking Alive

Today's passage:  Romans 14

7  For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

8  For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:  whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

9  For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

     I'm always curious about certain words in passages.  I've read these particular verses numerous times.  I've even used them in lessons to illustrate that we all have an influence on each other.  Our testimony is important.  How we live affects other people.  I understand the statement some sports figures make when they say they are not role models, because children should be looking to their parents, but like it or not guys or gals, ya are. The no man liveth unto himself part is not what I'm curious about.  What about the dying part?  No man dieth to himself.  What exactly does that mean?  And then in verse 9, it says that Christ died to be Lord both to the living and the dead.  And the most interesting word to me is in these verses is "revived".  A dead body did not rise from the tomb, it was a revived one.  As in, came back to life.  As in, was dead, but now alive.
     Zombies seem to be all the rage nowadays, and although I have never seen any of those movies or shows, let me assure you, Christ's resurrection was not a case of The Walking Dead.  Christ's exit from the Garden Tomb was not dead weight wandering around, using a human body as some kind of transport.  He was living and breathing as well, if not better, than before he was crucified Gethsemane, because He pretty well would have had a hard time breathing from the scourgings on through to giving up the Ghost.

Mary Magdalene Sees Jesus Risen
Taken from Treasures of the Bible
By Henry Davenport Northrop, D.D.
International Publishing Company, 1894

     He did this because my soul also will be revived after this earthly body sees death.  And my body and soul belong to God.  He claimed me.  He is not just Lord over my earthly body.  He is Lord over my other-earthly body as well, which will one day be turned into a heavenly body.  I don't have any idea what form it will be, but it is exciting to know that whatever it will be like, it will belong to the Lord.  It will be a revived body.  It will not be a mindless, apathetic, floating around the clouds existence.  It will be living.  Wow!  That is exciting, powerful stuff! He already breathed new life into this earthly, sinful body of mine, and I can look forward to a God-breathed heavenly body as well.
     It is not a new realization that Christ was really alive when He was resurrected, but it sure is wonderful to be reminded that what He does for me, He will do to me someday.
  "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."  Philippians 1:21

   

Risk-y

Today's passage:  II Samuel 17
     A great amount of military strategy is trying to get into the enemy's head and predict his next move.  This is probably why I never enjoyed the game Risk.  I have never been a very strategic person.  Most men love that game.  In college, a few people tried to teach me how to play, but gave up after the first five minutes.  I was hopelessly clueless.  My logic and reasoning skills have only kicked in since being an adult--at least I would like to think I have some now.
     This whole passage is Absalom's determining what his father might do next.  Everyone understands that Absalom is staking his claim as king.  He made it quite clear at the end of the last chapter when before all of Israel, he treats King David's concubines as his own.  So what next?  Absalom knows he needs to secure his kingdom.  He knows that there will always be those loyal to his father unless his father is dead.  He needs to know how best to achieve that objective.  The advice from Ahithophel is to take some troops out to pursue David.  He will kill David himself, and all of David's followers will somehow come following him back to the palace, Pied-Piper-of-Hamlin style.  That is not exactly the picture Ahithophel paints, but pretty close.  Of course, the hero in this little narrative would be Ahithophel.  Absalom would have sat around the palace waiting for his return, cheering his general's wise military genius.  This is the cartoon dream bubble I see above Ahithophel's head.
     Surprisingly, although Absalom thinks it is a brilliant plan, he wants to hear another choice.  He summons Hushai, who he doesn't realize is working as a double agent for David.  This is because Hushai understood that the way to Absalom's heart was to appeal to his pride.  He does this at the end of the last chapter, when asked wasn't he one of David's men, by saying, "Nay; but whom the LORD, and this people, and all the men of Israel, choose, his will I be, and with him will I abide."  He uses the same technique in this passage.  When asked how they should go after David, Hushai shoots down Ahithophel's idea.  He reminds Absalom that his father is a valiant warrior, and that his men are too.  Wouldn't it be better if brawny, strapping, mighty Absalom should go after his father himself?  In one respect, Hushai is taunting Absalom by touting his father's military abilities, and in the other respect is suggesting that Absalom is the only one who could defeat him.  Hushai has a real understanding of his enemy, and uses the wisest method to gain the upper hand.  The rest of Absalom's counselors agree, and don't they kind of have to, because otherwise they are telling Absalom that Ahithophel would be far better suited to battle the enemy, that he would be a much better match for David.  These guys are not dummies.  They know that you don't tell your new king he is not strong enough to take down his father.

Young Knight, the Armor of God--Taken from Standard Bible Story Readers, Book Four
By Lillie A. Faris, Illustrated by O.A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
Standard Publishing Company, 1927

Now here is something that I have to wonder about, because the Bible does not use quotations marks the way we do today.  Verse 14 says,

"And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.  For the LORD had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom."  

Is the second sentence something the counselors said?  Or is it what God wrote to explain why Hushai's advice was taken over Ahithophel's?  Was it the counselors saying that they thought God preferred Hushai's advice over Ahithophel's because the latter would bring harm to Absalom?  Or is God telling us He persuaded these counselors so that He could bring evil upon Absalom?  It might seem like a small detail,  but if you read it all together, it just sounds like the counselors are reasoning this together.  When I take a second look, it almost seems this is not a quotation, but God explaining that the reason those counselors took hold of Hushai's plan was His exact design.  If this is the case, and I am persuaded that it is, Absalom is doomed.  No military strategy he develops is going to win him this war.  God is working behind the scenes.  He is giving Hushai the wisdom to sway Absalom, he is putting foolish words into Ahithophel's mouth (which is exactly what David prayed for in Chapter 15).  It really doesn't matter what Absalom decides, because if God is against him, he will not succeed.
     Things do start to fall apart.  Hushai has already sent word to David about Absalom's plans,  the surrounding countries are supplying David and his men with food, and Ahithophel commits suicide after his humiliating rejection.  Absalom can not yet see that his time on the throne will be very short-lived.
     I think that if I ever got to the place in my life where God had to bring evil upon me, I would be devastated.  And it could happen so easily.  If I start by taking little steps away from Him, maybe skipping my Bible reading a day or two, perhaps forgetting to pray here or there, finding excuses to not be in His House (or grabbing hold of excuses the devil hands me) I can drift farther and farther away from God.  If I were to let down my guard with things I watch, what I listen to, places I go, I could slip out of His service and onto His watchlist.  I don't ever want to be aiding the Enemy.  I don't ever want to cultivate negative things in my life that might cause Him to eliminate me.  Oh, I'm not worried about my Home in Heaven.  That was secured long ago, and had nothing to do with me, but my fellowship with God could be easily compromised if I slowly start to aid the other side. This is why I need to be a strategist, myself.  I always need to anticipate Satan's next move to bring me down.  He is always trying.  He would like nothing better than to recruit someone to work for his team.  And as tempting as he tries to make his recruitment package sound, that is a move that is way too risky.

Provoked

Today's passage:  II Samuel 10
     The new king of Ammon had a lot to learn about foreign policy.  His father had died, and now he is suddenly leading his country.  As is custom today, and apparently at that time, King David of Israel sends dignitaries to pay their respects for the old king's death.  Only Hanun, the new king, listens to bad advice.  His counsellors are certain that David only means to send spies into the land, so that they can get some kind of advantage if they choose to make war on them.  Hanun could have sent David's emissaries away.  Instead, he chooses to insult them in the worst way possible.  You can read about his actions in verses 4-5.  What he does brings great humiliation to these ambassadors.  And it was unnecessary.  If he was concerned about war with Israel before, he should be doubly concerned now.  Was he trying to entice David into battle?  I don't know.  David and Hanun's father had mutual peace since the whole reason David sent these men was because "his father shewed kindness unto me."
     Hanun knows what will happen when David's men return to Israel.  He is expecting a war.  So he hires Syrian soldiers to aid them in battle.  All the countries know what a formidable warrior David and his men have proven to be.  Hanun is not foolish enough to think that Ammon can fight this war alone.  He knows he needs an ally.  Syria is willing to help, with payment for their services of course.  So when David's military leaders, Joab and Abishai arrive, they strategize as to the best way to take out these two countries.  Syria is stationed on the front lines, which I guess is a pretty good plan since their motivation to fight would be a lot less than Ammon's.  The Ammonites are guarding the castle, they are the last line of defense.
     Joab is a clever strategist.  He takes on the Syrian front, while Abishai, his brother, leads the front against Ammon.  Joab's battle is going pretty well.  He even returns to Jerusalem.  This gives Syria time to send for reinforcements.  With this news, David decides to lead his men.  He crosses over the Jordan River and destroys the Syrians at Helam.  Those remaining, surrender and agree to be David's servants from this time forward.  Syria also decides that they will never assist Ammon in battle again.  Apparently, Hanun did not make a great military leader.
     When I read this passage, it shows me that when provoked, it is necessary to show our might.  So many people protest that we are fighting a war across the world.  But we were provoked into that war.  Maybe in the past we have gone into countries without provocation, but this was not the case with this last war we have been involved.  Like David's emissaries, we were disgraced, and on our own land.  We had not given any reason for enemies to attack us.  Except that we stood for something they were envious of, except that we are despised for what we believe.  Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and we have been able to maintain freedom for over 200 years.  The Judeo part is what really disturbs many countries of the world.  We were propagators for establishing Israel as a nation, and we continue (at least in part) to be Israel's friend.  When we do those things, we are naturally going to have and keep enemies.  And there will be times we will have to display our strength to assure our enemies that we will not back down on those principles.  I worry about those who do not understand this.  I am concerned for people who preach against war and say "Thou shalt not kill" forgetting the entire Old Testament, where war was a very necessary option exercised to maintain Jehovah worship.  And what about Revelation?  I mean, it is not exactly a peaceful book.

United States of America flag waving in wind--Taken from Standard Bible Story Readers, Book Four
By Lillie A. Faris, Illustrated by O. A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
The Standard Publishing Company, 1927

     Do not misunderstand me, I am not a fan of war.  I have three boys.  I do not look forward to the day when they might decide to join the military and serve our country in a battle overseas (although I would be proud if they did).   I know that the toil war takes on our young men and women is psychologically and emotionally devastating.  But I also know that if we don't show our might, if we kowtow to every dignitary, proclaim a pacifist approach to every situation, we will not be sending our men and women overseas to fight a battle, they will have to protect us here on our own soil.  Sometimes we have to take the defensive, and I know that is something that is very controversial.  But I think this passage is proof that when provoked, we have to take action.  We cannot sit and wait for the war to come to us.  We have too much at stake to risk that.  We have freedoms that the world envies.  We have a country with opportunities that other countries can only dream of.  Might does not always make right, but might does make other countries think twice about challenging us.  With an upcoming election, and more and more candidates jumping onto an isolationist bandwagon--leave the world to itself, let's only worry about us approach--it concerns me.  The minute we say we are going to do that  is the minute our enemies (and yes, it is good versus evil in this wicked world) will up the ante.  Not going to retaliate?  Let's just see about that.  Hijacked airplanes flown into buildings was just the beginning.  There is no end to their evil imaginings.  And at some point we will have to retaliate because we will have enemies in our own country declaring war on us.  We will live in a state of fear, all because of misapplying "Thou shalt not kill".  All because we do not want to be politically incorrect.  Well, we can take that path, but it will be our destruction.  David went on the offensive.  He destroyed the Ammonites and Syrians before they had a chance to cross over the river and take him down.  He did not invite war, he was provoked.  And it was necessary to combat the evil that would try to destroy him.  Peace on earth is a nice saying, but trying to keep to ourselves will never achieve that.  Peace on earth will only happen when the Prince of Peace returns.  Until then, unless there is Peace in people's hearts, there will always be war.  And guess which country has the most Peace to offer?  Ours.  We can offer Peace, we can offer Freedom, but if we are no longer a nation with the liberties we have, we will never be able to offer anything again.  We cannot keep to ourselves.  We have too much to offer.

Trust Issues

Today's passage:  II Samuel 3
      Abner was a crafty fellow.  He obviously was in this king-making business for how it benefitted him.  Most people in politics are in it for what they can get, and I think that is why we become so disillusioned with them.  Backroom deals, compromises, loophole promises pave the way for power and influence.  Abner was no exception to these schemes.  "Now there was long war between the house of Saul and the house of David:  but David waxed stronger and stronger, and the house of Saul waxed weaker and weaker."  Abner is on a sinking ship, and he knows it.  The numbers would seem to be in Ish-bosheth's favor.  After all, most of the tribes had gone with him.  But God was on David's side, and that makes up for any weakness in numbers.  When Ish-bosheth accuses Abner of a liaison with his father's concubine, Abner makes a great deal of being offended.  He makes it clear to Ish-bosheth that all he need do is say the word and Ish-bosheth will be ousted.  It is obvious who is running the show.  I think Abner was looking for any excuse to go work for David.  David's kingdom was on the rise, and Abner now realizes he picked the wrong side.  He also remembers what happened at Gibeon.  He knows that Joab will never rest until he has avenged the death of his brother, Asahel.  Ish-bosheth knows that Abner can dethrone him and doesn't push the concubine matter any farther.
     Still, Abner decides to do some under-the-table dealings anyway.  He contacts David and assures him of his allegiance, and the future allegiance of the other tribes.  David accepts with the condition that Abner will bring Michal, the wife Saul had promised to him so long ago but then married off to someone else.  David feels it is time that Saul's promise be honored.  So Abner arrives, treated like a guest.  It is fortunate for him that Joab and his men are in battle, because he may have not been received so graciously.  Abner leaves with an assurance from David that he will leave in peace.  I believe this is all Abner was really after.  Unlike that other king, Ish-bosheth, David was in command of his men.  Abner knows this.  He knows that if David makes a promise, it will be kept.  He knows that if David says to withhold harm from Abner, he will be given safe passage. 
     When Joab gets word of Abner's visit, treated like a respected ambassador, Joab is furious.  He confronts David about the matter.  He tells David he is being played, just as Ish-bosheth had been.  David apparently does not give Joab the answers he is looking for, because Joab sends servants to retrieve Abner, without David's knowledge. 
     Under other circumstances, Abner might have had cause for concern.  But he knows David.  This is the man who spared Saul's life in the cave.  This is the man who tiptoed around Abner's sleeping men to confiscate Saul's spear and water canteen.  Abner had become quite familiar with David's character.  He knew that he was not given to deceit or masquerades.  So when Joab requests a private conversation with Abner, Abner doesn't worry.  I'm sure he smiled smugly at Joab, knowing there was little Joab could do.  Although Abner may have known David's character, he obviously did not know Joab's.  Joab takes Abner's life in the same style Abner had taken his brother's. 
     When David learns of the news, he orders Joab to mourn this man.  Joab had his revenge, but Abner will have the last play.  Joab must humiliate himself by being respectful of this man's death.  The man who had murdered his brother would be given a statesmen's burial.  I'm surprised that David does not require a more stringent punishment upon Joab.  This action would make it appear that Joab was calling the shots.  It might make David appear weak.  It might make people question David's word.  But Joab is also family.  He is David's nephew.  Asahel was David's nephew.  Maybe just a little part of him knew that Abner got what was coming.  So for now, Joab is spared any further punishment. 
     Abner played the political game.  His allegiance was with whoever he thought was the rising star at the time.  When it was Saul, he was loyal to Saul.  When he thought it would be Ish-bosheth, he was loyal to Ish-bosheth.  Now that David's influence had increased, he became loyal to David.  In reality, he was only loyal to himself.  Shifting allegiances make a lot of enemies.  Abner thought if he befriended his enemies, that would cause them to forget their grievances, or at least be controlled by them.  He thought he had cleverly ingratiated himself to David enough that his nephew could only follow his lead.  He didn't take into account that like himself, Joab had a mind of his own.  He didn't trust Joab, but he trusted his pact with David, and he assumed that Joab was loyalty bound as David was.  It was his undoing. 
     This is what David says at Abner's memorial:  "Died Abner as a fool dieth?  Thy hands were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters:  as a man falleth before wicked men, so fellest thou."  Abner's life and death are reminders that we can never be too sure of others.  Our trust is only entirely safe in one place.  In Him.

Games People Play

Today's passage:  II Samuel 2
     At long last, David becomes king.  Of Judah, that is.  Despite what Saul's military captain, Abner, already knew, he decided to take matters into his own hands.  He staged a sort of coup by convincing Saul's still living son, Ish-bosheth, that he should be the next ruler.  He secures Ish-bosheth across the Jordan River in Mahanaim, Manasseh country.  He is then able to procure the loyalty of all the remaining tribes, installing Ish-bosheth as the king over the whole of Israel.  Only Judah recognizes David as king.

      It is amazing what people will do, even though they know what God's will is.  I'm not talking about when we are not sure.  I'm not talking about when we take step by step by faith because we are waiting on God to show us what to do.  I'm talking about when God has clearly shown us, and we think by doing the exact opposite, we are somehow going to change what God intended.  Abner, like his leader before him, did not bother to ask God for wisdom in this matter.  All Abner could see was that his power and control were about to end.  Maybe he even thought he was in danger because he had been Saul's number one guy.  He didn't know David very well.  Abner had been a loyal servant to Saul.  David set great store by loyalty.  The likelihood that Abner would have been rewarded, maybe even promoted was pretty high.  This stunt would cost him.  Had Abner asked God what should be done, he may have been given a pension and been enjoying retirement.  But Abner seems to be an ambitious man.  I don't know that Ish-bosheth had any plans of taking the throne when his father died.  I'm sure he had been told by more than one person that David was to be the next king.  That this is what God had ordered.  I can't believe that Abner did not know this too.  But the hunger for power can be devouring.  With the support from the lead strategist from his father's household, it was probably not a stretch for Ish-bosheth to imagine that they could pull off this coup.  Here is where the power struggle really begins.

     David's military man, Joab, and Abner meet in Gibeon.  They size each other up.  They evaluate each other's armies.  "And Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise, and play before us.  And Joab said, Let them arise."  Abner views this meeting as a chess match.  Both sides have kings. Who will declare "Checkmate"? Joab and Abner play bishop, rook or knight, and the rest of the soldiers are pawns in their little game.  How many casualties will there be?  How many men will be taken out, turn by turn before one is declared the winner?  Abner's army seems to be losing the match at one point.  Then Joab's brother, Asahel, another important piece, pursues after Abner.  He is determined to take him out of the game.  He ignores Abner's taunts and distractions, focused on eliminating this very important player.  But Abner makes the better move, and slays Asahel.  Abner knows Joab will come back with his fiercest move yet, but sometimes anger fuels us, and sometimes it backfires on us.  Abner knows this, and is counting on the latter.  Joab continues the pursuit, causing Abner to retreat into a defensive position.  As Abner gets closer to Ish-bosheth country, he is reinforced by Benjamin's tribe.  Joab has to settle for a stalemate.  Another game will have to be played another day.  He is not willing to lose any more men on this day.  Losing a brother was enough.  So, Abner returns to his king, and Joab returns to his.  Both men, more intent on playing a game than seeing the loss of life, until one of those lives was dear.  Joab and his remaining men bury his brother.  It is a sad reminder that war costs something. 
     I know that some believe that leaders play political games with soldier's lives.  And while that may be true in other countries, I have never thought it to be the case in America.  I don't believe it was a game to David, but I'm pretty sure Abner was not in the least concerned about his men, as long as he came out on the winning side.  In some countries, militia are used as pawns in a chess match.  And although many have accused our country of doing the same thing, I refuse to believe that.  Maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm convinced that when our military has to make a move, it really is to protect our interests, and to protect freedom.  I'm not saying that every display of our military power is always the best move, but I have never believed that our leaders have ever dealt carelessly with those lives, willing to throw them away as long as we win.  I don't believe that of our current President, and I don't believe that of our former President.  I don't believe that of our generals.  There are always power-hungry people, but as the daughter of a military man who served under some pretty high-ranking officials during his career, even though in a relative time of peace, I knew the character of some of these individuals, and I know they only had the best interests of the country and those who served under them.
     Ish-bosheth seemed to be a puppet king, succumbing to the string-pulling of his father's military captain.  Abner refuses to yield to God's will, and although he returned home safely, many of his men gave their lives for a fruitless cause.  That is selfishness at its highest, and though I haven't read ahead, I'm guessing that Abner will be taken out of the game in the next match.  The best move?  Heed God's will when we know it.  Ignoring it, avoiding it, fighting against it never plays out the way we planned.  God's strategy is always best, and we can never outplay Him.

Spooky

Today's passage:  I Samuel 28
      I am inclined to cry out, like the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz, "I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do believe in spooks."
      There is so much to learn and absorb from this chapter.  The Philistines are at it again.  They are camping along the hillside across the valley from Israel, ready for war.  Saul is fearful, perhaps because David is now on the side of the Philistines.  Now, he isn't really, but that is what Achish, the Philistine king believes.  He has been harboring David for over a year, so he expects David to fight for them.  David has no intention of doing this, but leads Achish to believe it.  So Saul feels as if he has lost the battle (his best warrior fighting with the enemy) and Achish feels as if he has won.  Saul prays to God, a novel approach for him, and is disconcerted when God doesn't answer.  God would have answered if Saul's heart had been right, but Saul had much to confess to be back in fellowship with Him.  If he had already been repentant, David would have been back at his side in his kingdom.  Instead of searching his heart and repenting of his sin, he seeks out a witch.  He had banished those involved with the occult to leave the land at some point in his reign.  I am guessing that he realized the evil spirit he wrestled with was a direct result from those types of people hanging around the palace.  This was a wise thing to do.  God commanded that his people stay away from any kind of sorcery, wizardry, occult activity. Now, frustrated that God has not answered the moment Saul calls on Him (we've seen his impatience before) he goes after the very people he drove away. 

Saul Sees Samuel While Visiting the Witch at En Dor--Taken from Treasures of the Bible
By Henry Davenport Northrop
International Publishing Company, 1894

     He is told about a woman in Endor who can communicate with the dead.  She is hesitant to help because she thinks this is a trap set by Saul to have her imprisoned or killed for violating the king's law.  Saul is disguised, so she does not realize it is him, until she calls up Samuel from the dead.  There is so much speculation about whether it is really Samuel or not.  Could it really be him?  It could.  God could have surprised them both, and allowed Samuel to reappear.  A demon could have taken on Samuel's form and appeared.  I do not claim to know which it was, but whatever happened, it revealed to the witch that the man who asked for this appearance was Saul, and she saw something she had never seen before.  Samuel (or Samuel's form) tells Saul that if God had departed from him, whatever gave him the notion that he could tell him anything better?  Instead, Samuel gives him even worse news.  He does well to be afraid, because he and his sons will be killed.  Saul is devastated by this news.  He stretches out on the floor, terrified, refusing to eat or even to move.  The witch, not wanting to be responsible for the king's death, especially in her abode, makes a meal for him, and begs him to eat.  He finally does to the witch's great relief.
     I still believe it could have been Samuel that appeared.  But there are a couple things that make me a little skeptical, because only the witch claims to have seen him.  When Saul is talking to the spirit, and I'm not clear if he is talking directly to Samuel or through the witch, it doesn't say that Saul sees Samuel, because he has to ask the witch what the man looks like.  There are many mediums today who claim they can talk with our loved ones who have passed on.  I am not disputing that there are those who can.  The devil is the god of this world and he can manipulate things.  The Bible also says that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, so the devil must have many demons to do his bidding and take on many forms.  I also think there are a lot of phonies out there who make a lot of money by telling people what they want to hear.  They have perfected the art of the scam.  I mean, this witch tells Saul she sees an old man in a cloak.  That automatically makes this apparition Samuel?  Is she deceiving Saul?  I don't know.  What I do know is we are inundated with occultist books, shows, music, culture.  It is everywhere.  I find it best to stay away from all of it.  What seems harmless, is Satan's way of sugarcoating things to make it palatable so he can lure us into something more.  Especially because I have young children who have not accepted Christ yet, I do not want them to be subjected to any spirits that are not from God.  I do not want to open my door to Satan in even the slightest way.  This may seem like an extreme position, and maybe it is, but I just don't feel like I can be too careful in this area.  Vampires, witches, goblins, sorcerers, wizards, there are dozens of shows and games that promote these things.  Are they wrong?  They are wrong for my family.  I am not going to pretend to give people a list of what they should or should not participate in.  The Bible is very clear that we should not consult with fortunetellers and palmreaders.  What Saul did was in absolute violation of God's laws.  We shouldn't participate in seances and witch's spells.  So should we watch or listen or read things that have them?  Again, that is for each person to decide on their own.  I want to stay as far away from those things as possible.  Just recently, I upset my son with not allowing him to play an on-line computer game he thought was really fun.  I thought it was just ninja battles, but when taking a closer look, I found it was each participant playing a power card, matching elements against each other.  Now, was this just like a game of rock, paper, scissors where you try to outwit the other player by throwing down the right signal?  Maybe.  But for me, they looked too much like tarot cards.  Am I being extreme?  I mean, I can't shelter my kids from everything.  This is true.  But I have young souls to look after, and I have to answer to God for that.  What may be extreme is my way of trying to keep my boys from following after anything that might blind their eyes to the truth of God's Word.  I explained to my son why I didn't want him to play the game, he understood.  Does that mean he will always understand?  Maybe not.  I try to strike the right balance.  I don't forbid him to play the computer altogether.  He knows that just like there are certain TV shows he is not allowed to watch (there are tons of shows he can) there are certain games he will not be allowed to play.  There will also be certain books I will not allow him to read.  I know, I know, I can hear people saying it.  He will just do those things on the sly or when he is old enough to leave my house.  I can't be responsible for what he does when he leaves.  I have tried to teach him the why of what he can or cannot do and what he does when he is on his own is his choice.  I don't know if I am right.  I am not promoting book burning or unplugging the TV.  I am just trying to be as watchful as I can over the precious souls God has given for me to raise.  I am afraid of all that is out there for their ears and eyes, because "I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I do, I do believe in spooks."

Blurred Lines

Today's passage:  I Samuel 7
     When I was younger, and we went to the beach I used to walk along the sand, watching my footprints disappear as the waves washed them away.  I would write my name or draw a picture waiting for the waves to erase them like an Etch-a-Sketch.  Sometimes the sand would only partially erase them, so that the letters of my name or the lines of the picture were blurred.  They were still there, but it wasn't easy to make out what they had been.  This is what I think about when I think about how Israel mingled idol worship with Jehovah worship.  Blurred lines which make you wonder what the real thing was in the beginning.
     Samuel tries to set his people on a right path.  Throughout Israel's history, they had forsaken God and gone after the gods of the surrounding nations.  When the leadership was weak, Jehovah worship was weaker.  One of the first instances of the people departing from God to worship an idol is back in Exodus, when the people form the golden calf.  They had just come from Egypt and had been exposed to the numerous idols the Pharaoh and his people worshipped.  Why shouldn't the Hebrew children have a physical representation of Jehovah?  They quickly find out this was not God's plan, and suffer the consequences of such behavior.  Yet, we see repeatedly in the Old Testament how they continue to fall into these heathen rituals.  The book of Judges narrates repetitive cycles of the Jews falling away from God, falling before idols, falling into trouble, and then falling on their knees before the Lord.  Why would they keep doing this?  Peer pressure. Like the waves of the ocean carrying away part of the sand picture, peer pressure carried away part of what they believed.   During Joshua's military campaigns, he had failed to drive the enemy nations out of the land, so their influence remained in the land, and slowly trickled into Israel's worship. 
     Now, in I Samuel, they were aggravated with the Philistine control of many of their cities.  Samuel tells them how to correct this.  It doesn't seem like he should have had to explain this to them, but it had been a long time between the book of Judges and the book of Samuel.  We saw how Eli had been the priest for many of those 100 years.  And as we've seen before, with weak leadership was weak worship.  They needed to be reminded how to go back to God.  Sometimes we need reminders.  Sometimes we don't even see how far away the ocean has carried us until God brings something into our lives and we look and say, "Hey, how did I get all the way over here?"  I think that probably happened in Israel.  They drifted little by little until they didn't even know they weren't worshipping God at all.  It isn't until Samuel brings it to their attention that they say, "Oh yeah, we've been doing this wrong."
      The people commit to do things God's way. Samuel puts their faith to the test.  How?  He has the people gather at Mizpeh (not to be confused with Mizpah, which is a little farther north in the hills).  Mizpeh is located right on the border of Philistia and Israel, past the hill country of Ephraim, and on a major waterway.  Do you think the Philistines are not going to notice this?  Do you think Samuel chose this site by accident?  I don't.  I think Samuel was letting his people (and the Philistines) know that if they were truly going to surrender to God, they were going to have to trust Him to deliver them from the enemy.  He makes a big show of it too, almost daring the Philistines to come after them.  He had seen how they had demolished his people, I'm guessing he was anxious to see some of them tucking tail and running.  Samuel pours out a drink offering, and the people fast and pray.  The Philistines are on their way over.  God's people are afraid.  They had already suffered at Philistine hands once, they really didn't want to go through that again.  Samuel prays and offers a lamb sacrifice before the Lord.  The Lord answers by thundering down on the Philistines.  Israel takes back ownership of many of the cities the Philistines had captured and the two nations live in relative peace while Samuel is in charge.  Of course, this sets the scene perfectly for the epic battle between David and Goliath.  It is no wonder Goliath will taunt the Israelis, but more about that in Chapter 17.
     Would Israel's behavior be long-term?  Only if they distanced themselves from evil influences.  Only if they didn't chat with the Philistine farmer just on the other side of the border, or go get a drink with the Philistine soldier guarding the river crossing.  When I think about these people in their everyday life, that maybe they had befriended each other in their daily lives, then it is easy to see how dinner at a Philistine family's home could develop into a meaningful friendship and could influence love for Jehovah God.  Maybe there were times that this had the reverse effect and a Philistine would come to know about Israel's God instead of the other way around, but it seems this was rare.  Does this mean we shouldn't be friends with the world?  We have to be careful.  Of course, we want to be friendly and show them the love of God, but it becomes difficult when we are invited into their homes or invited to other activities.  My husband faces this every week.  He has many police friends that invite him to a bar or a party or even a ballgame.  The bar is obviously out, but the party or the ballgame seem harmless.  But usually there is drinking involved.  Though my husband has had a history with alcohol and has not had a temptation to return to it, he knows that it makes better sense to stay as far away as possible than put himself in a situation where he will be under its exposure.  These have not always been easy choices for him, because he wants to be friends with these people so he can point them to Christ.  But there has to be a line of separation too.  And that line of separation can become blurry after a while, if we do not keep close to God.  You know what keeps the line from getting blurry?  Drawing the line farther away from the tide.  I never had to wonder if my footprints or my name or picture would wash away in the waves when I was farther up the beach.  Once in a while an unusually heavy wave would try to reach me, but if I was far enough off the tide line, I could play for hours.  The Israelites were only as safe as their lines were.  If the lines started to blur, and they didn't reestablish them far enough away from their heathen counterparts, they would become confused and lose their identity in God.  I have to establish lines too.  And that is not always easy.
    

This Little Light of Mine

Today's passage:  I Samuel 3
     "And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always."  Exodus 27:20
     Eli had become an ineffective priest.  He had become a permissive father.  God had already told him that He would take away the priesthood from his sons because of their ungodly behavior.  One might argue, "But they were adults, what could Eli do?"  He could have stripped them of their priesthood, he could have made them pack their bags and participate in their wickedness elsewhere. Maybe he was oblivious to all that his sons were doing, but if he was, then he neglected to find out.  As parents, we must be vigilant.  We must not always trust our child's words, we must observe their actions.  I know this is sometimes easier said than done, and since I do not have teenagers or young adults yet, it would be easy to dismiss this bit of advice, but if I remind myself of this now, hopefully I will follow through when those times actually come.
     Growing up, if I were ever to misbehave in school, my mother always sided with the teacher.  Always.  I didn't know until I was an adult that she didn't care for a particular elementary teacher of mine.  She never let on that she disagreed with her.  I always knew that if I got in trouble in school, I got in trouble at home.  Why isn't it like that today?  Teachers are not perfect.  They make mistakes.  But children should never know that parent and teacher are not in agreement.  Children should never be aware that Mommy and Teacher are not on the same page.  When we take up for our children in every matter, they soon learn that their behavior is excusable.  I'm not saying we should never be advocates for our children.  But if we choose to step in on their behalf, it should be minimal, and the child should not be aware of it.  I've watched several children grow up.  I've noticed something.  Children whose parents made excuses for them, many times,  are still making excuses.  Our children will never be perfect.  But we should never excuse bad behavior.  They should always know consequences are down the line.  We should show mercy on occasion, because God is merciful with us, but not every time. 
     I'm afraid Eli made excuses for his sons.  And now it was harvest time.  God made it clear that Eli's family would no longer claim the priesthood.  The lamp of God had gone out in the tabernacle.  It went out literally and symbolically.  The priests were instructed to keep the lamp lit at all times, but Eli has allowed it to extinguish.  He had not performed his duties as a priest should.  The light had gone out in the tabernacle and in Eli's family.  God would be judging them for their misconduct very soon.  This is the message He had already given Eli, and it is the message He repeated to young Samuel. 

Samuel Tells Eli that he heard him calling--Taken from Standard Bible Readers, Book Two
By Lillie A. Faris, Illustrated by O.A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
 Standard Publishing Company, 1925

Eli was not surprised by Samuel's message.  In fact, he seems almost resigned, "It is the LORD:  let him do what seemeth him good."  I can almost see Eli flopping down in a chair with a sigh as he says this.  He has a well-there-is-nothing-I-can-do-about-it-now attitude.  And there probably isn't.  But what could he have done about it sooner?  Perhaps he had taken many measures to correct his sons' behavior, and God just didn't see fit to show us this, but why would they still be priests?  They should not have been in that position if they were not falling in line with Dad's (and God's) rules.  Eli should have confronted them, but sometimes as parents, we are too weak.  Our weaknesses show in the lives of our children, and since we all have faults, our kids are walking billboards, advertising every flaw in our lives.  What faults of mine will my children take with them?  If I see them now, I better try to do something, while they are still at home, while I still have influence on them.  If I leave them uncorrected, their little light may be snuffed out, and the fault would be mine.

Dilemmas

Today's passage:  I Samuel 2
     Hannah had a dilemma.  She had prayed a prayer, promising her son to the Lord, if He should see fit to bless her with one.  He did.  She was determined to keep her promise.  She would raise this little boy for the first few years of his life and then give Him over to God.  She would teach Samuel to respect the priests, to pull his weight, to be a servant.  The time had passed quickly and it was now time to take little Samuel to the tabernacle and allow him to start serving God.
     Any mother would struggle with this promise.  But I think Hannah struggled for an even greater reason.  In the time she had vowed this to God, the priesthood in Shiloh had become increasingly corrupt.  Eli's sons, Hophni and Phinehas were involved in immorality, the offerings for sacrifices were being tampered with, the people were refusing to even bring their sacrifices to the tabernacle any longer because of the corruption.  They would prefer to take their chances by angering God, rather than allowing their offerings to be made an abomination.  Maybe Hannah was blissfully unaware of all this, I kind of doubt it since Elkanah was a Levite which means he would have to take a turn assisting the priests during some of the feasts.  It is clear that he and the family went to Shiloh every year to offer sacrifices, I'm pretty sure they noticed the differences as each year passed.  I'm guessing that the year before Samuel was to go live in the tabernacle, Hannah and Elkanah would have had some serious discussions.
      "The tabernacle is not becoming a place we should want Samuel to be raised, " Elkanah may have argued.  "Yes, I've noticed that too,"  Hannah may have said, "But I promised God that if He gave me a son, I would let Him have the child."  Elkanah would have reasoned that God would not expect her to keep that promise in the light of these circumstances. Really?  Why not?  Wouldn't God have known what the tabernacle would be like when it was time to go live there?  Wouldn't He have been the only One to know what the future would hold for young Samuel?  Hannah may have wavered on her promise, not because she wanted to hold onto her only son, but because she was uncertain at the influences that would bombard his young, impressionable life.  I can't blame her.  If I knew what she knew, I would have to seriously reconsider my promise to God.  I might have to renege on my vow.  But Hannah chooses to honor God, and keep her promise to Him.  She has to choose to let God take care of Samuel in these undesirable circumstances, instead of thinking she knows what is best, and raising him at home.  This is a difficult choice.  When it comes to our children, we always want their best.  But their best is giving them to God, and letting Him do with them what He will.  Trusting God with our children, is probably the greatest evidence of faith we can place in Him.  Doesn't He know what their futures hold?  Doesn't He want what is best for them, and in some cases, doesn't that sometimes mean exposing them to situations we would not want?  Hannah was right to keep her promise, even if circumstances had changed from when she made it.  There would be some unfortunate consequences that would affect Samuel later in his life, because of Eli's influence, but keeping him home would more than likely have brought consequences far greater.

Samuel is presented to Eli--Taken from Standard Bible Readers, Book Two
By Lillie A. Faris, Illustrated by O.A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
The Standard Publishing Company, 1925

     How lightly do I treat the promises I make to God?  How many times do I commit something to Him, and later take it back, thinking, well, God understands.  Does He?  Didn't He know what lay ahead before I uttered the promise?  I need to be sure that when I tell God I will give Him something, that I follow through.  Whether it be my children or my time.  There have been times I've told God I would be involved in a certain ministry and then backed out when other unforeseen things laid claim on my time.  The little voice inside me said, "Oh, God understands you can't do that now.  He knows you didn't know what you were promising."  The problem is, He does know.  He knew when I made the promise what might creep up to keep me from fulfilling it.  Do I use it as an excuse, or do I honor the promise I made?  Promises are meant to be difficult to keep.  But they are also meant to be kept.  And that is why I need to be careful breaking them even when I'm faced with a dilemma.

Ladies in Waiting

Today's passage:  I Samuel 1
     Hannah must have felt lonely in her grief.  I have always supposed that Elkanah and Hannah together would have been sorrowful that Hannah's womb had been shut.  Elkanah tried to empathize with Hannah as best he could, he did want to have a child with her, but the truth was, he had children.  Really, he couldn't relate.  He could try.  He loved Hannah very much, that is evident, he longed to see her have a child, but he would never really be able to partner with her in the grief she felt, because he was already a father.  He knew what it had been like to hold a son, and then another son, and a daughter, and then another daughter.  I don't know how many children he and his other wife Peninnah had but verse 4 says sons and daughters plural, so he had at least four.  It is clear that Elkanah reserved his deepest feelings for Hannah.  I don't know which wife had come first, or if he had taken them together, but we see the natural consequences of bigamy.  If Hannah had been the first wife, how much more incompetent would she have felt once Penninah was immediately able to give Elkanah children?  Would Elkanah have taken on another wife to produce heirs?  I can't believe that Elkanah married Peninnah for her character, because she seems to be heartless, flaunting her fertility in Hannah's face as if she was blessed by God.  Then again, I think that was Peninnah's jealousy bubbling forth.  She would never have the place in Elkanah's heart that Hannah did, despite all the children, so she felt compelled to lash out at Hannah for this.  It was not Hannah's fault that this had taken place, it was Elkanah's.  He had put their family in this situation, by taking on two wives.
     In recent years, I have seen polygamy become more accepted.  A few years back, a former Chicago talk show host who now has her own network invited polygamist families to talk about their experiences.  Coinciding with this, was a show on HBO (not one I have ever seen, but have heard about) called Big Love, about a man who takes several wives.  I told my husband at the time, this will be the next topic that people will fight to have accepted.  On the Chicago talk show, the women of this polygamist husband tried to explain how they thought of each wife as family.  They were not jealous of each other, and they helped each other raise the kids and clean house.  One big happy family, right?  I'm guessing if I went behind the scenes in this home, I would discover something far different than what they would have me believe.  The whole purpose of going on the show, was not to expose the practice, but to plead for acceptance.  So maybe these particular wives did get along, what happens when husband brings yet another wife home? What happens when she doesn't go along with the program?  What an excuse for immorality, at least on the husband's part! 
     In the Bible we see time and time again how bigamy or polygamy did not work out.  It was never God's plan.  It always only caused strife.  Poor Hannah finds herself the victim of the other wife, and this does not endear Peninnah to Elkanah, I'm certain.
     I remember waiting what seemed like a long time to become pregnant.  Even longer was the time between my first and second son.  But the time I waited was miniscule compared to what some couples wait.  I don't know why God has the timeline He has, but am I sensitive to those who are still waiting? I would never want to be like Peninnah, who boasted about her "ability". As if she could commandeer such a thing!  Hannah is the champion for women who have not yet had the children for which they are longing.  She is the whisper in the ear of the woman who is a mother in her heart.  I have met many women who did not have children, but were mothers. Just because they could not claim those children as their own, did not make them any less motherly. I've met aunts, teachers, friends, who though they did not have their own, qualified more as mothers than some who had actually given birth.  I know that is a common frustration.  Why would God give someone a child, who will not care for it, when there are so many women out there who would sacrifice themselves endlessly for little ones?   If I could answer that question, I would be a millionaire. 
     God will not give every woman a child.  Some women are content with this.  Other women are not.  I have known ladies who were intent on being the favorite aunt, the most sought after godmother, the funnest teacher (no such word, I know, but isn't that how a kid would say it?) in a child's life.  Why not?  Who knows what special place a woman can hold in the heart of a child?  She can have just as big an influence on that child as the mother does.  She can hold memories just as special in that child's heart as the woman who gave birth to him.   She can spoil him, give him extra time, do things that maybe Mom is not able to do.  Do you think Hannah held a cherished place in the hearts of Peninnah's children?  Do you think maybe, until Samuel was born, one of the girls would take a book and settle in Hannah's lap while Peninnah tended to her brothers?  Maybe Hannah assisted one of the sons with his homework while Peninnah prepared dinner.  I don't know if Hannah had that role at all, but if she did, she would have done it well, and she would have been the Godly influence they lacked from their own mother.   She could teach them about God, while she was waiting to teach her own.  She could give them her time when their own mother's was divided.   Let's not underestimate the influence a selfless woman can have in the life of a child.  While women are ladies in waiting, they can have a profound effect on the children around them.  It can be the most blessed influence in a child's life.

Hole in the Wall

Today's passage:  Isaiah 58
     My son loves a show on Nickelodeon called "Hole in the Wall".  It is a children's competition show.  The object is for the team of kids to position themselves in a way that matches the cutouts in a foam wall approaching them.  If they fashion themselves right, they will make it through the hole and win points.  It is harder than it looks and highly entertaining.
     "And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places:  thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in."  When I read that last part, I think of titles bestowed by royals.  A person who has particularly gained the attention of the king kneels before him and is dubbed, "The Keeper of the Jewels" or "Master of Horse". Israel had a solid beginning.  Along the way, she had allowed influences into her life that began to tear down her walls.  She forgot who had laid her foundation.  She started building with weak materials.  The walls began to crumble.  With time, walls cracked, holes appeared, foundations shifted.  A solid beginning can only go so far, if a person chooses not to build correctly on it. Just like the kid's game show, the holes can be so big, whole people can get through.  In Israel's case, it had been the wrong people.

Rebuilding the Walls of Jerusalem--Taken from Treasure of the Bible (Captivity and Return)
By Henry Davenport Northrop, D.D.
International Publishing Company, 1894

     I am thankful that I was raised in a solid family.  When I say solid, I mean a mother and father who loved each other and kept our family together through good and bad.  I have a close relationship with all my brothers and sisters, a circumstance I have learned since, that is unusual.  We were raised in church and given good examples at home.  We were taught kindness and respect.  We always had clothes to wear (hand-me-downs count), full tummies, and a place to live.  I had a very good foundation.  It has been a foundation that has helped my kids.  I realize not every one has been as fortunate as I have been. A person or nation who has not had a great beginning does not automatically collapse.  With God's help, he can lay a new foundation.  He can patch walls.  He can repair breaches.  When he does, wrong people will not be able to get through the holes.  Wrong influences will not have an opportunity to bring down the next generation.   He will garner the titles "Repairer of the Breach" and "Restorer of Paths to Dwell in" and most importantly, he will have a beautiful structure that will stand strong and not crumble.

Smooth Stones

Today's passage:  Isaiah 57
      Israel had reached a particularly low point.  She barely recognized the God who had made her a nation.  If anyone still worshipped Jehovah God, he was ridiculed.  If a righteous person died, she was not noticed. Israel was now no different from the surrounding nations because of her idolatry.  She went to great effort to worship these idols too.  God says in verse 6:  "Among the smooth stones of the stream is thy portion; they, they are thy lot:  even to them hast thou poured a drink-offering, thou hast offered a meat-offering, Should I receive comfort in these?"  Stream stones become smooth after they have been there a while.  A rock might start out ragged and dirty but after time at the bottom of a body of water, it will emerge without edges and clean.  God was telling Israel, they were in for a long haul of judgement because of their sin.  They would be spending a lot of time at the bottom of the stream.
     Smooth stones are great skipping rocks, but after they have finished skipping, they sink again to the bottom. Most people will not wade through the water to retrieve them. A smooth stone makes a great paperweight.  It can be painted with messages or vivid colors, but then its job is to sit around.  Sometimes they look pretty in the garden.  But they dull in comparison to the flowers blooming around them.  It seems that there is no use for a smooth stone.  It has no impact.  Israel had no impact on the nations around her.  She had not been that light.  So it seems that her punishment at the bottom of the stream would render her useless in the future.  Was that God's plan?  To toss her into the stream never to be heard from again?  No.  God had made a promise to Israel. At this point the Messiah had not come to earth yet, so this cannot be the end.

As Abram Journeyed He Built Altars to God--Taken from Standard Bible Story Readers, Book Four
By Lillie A. Faris, Illustrated by O.A. Stemler and Bess Bruce Cleaveland
Standard Publishing Company, 1927

     Smooth stones can be useful.  Several times in the Old Testament, stone altars were built for the Lord.  I'm only guessing now, but wouldn't smooth stones make for better building?  David collected five smooth stones and used one to topple Goliath.  The stone that kept Jesus in the tomb must have been smooth for it had been rolled away.  Jagged stones do not roll very easily.  Smooth stones can serve a very great purpose if God is using them.  God wanted to put Israel in a place where she could be used.  He was not done with her yet.  He still had a great purpose for her.  He needed to smooth away the edges and wash away the grit.  I don't want to allow myself to ever get as far gone as Israel.  She had to go very far from God to have this judgement pronounced on her.  I don't know how much time she had to spend in the bottom of the stream to become useful for God again.  Smooth stones have their purpose, but I'd just as soon stay out of the water.